{
"authors": [
"Richard Sokolsky",
"Aaron David Miller"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
],
"collections": [
"Iranian Proliferation"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"Middle East",
"Iran"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Foreign Policy",
"Nuclear Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
The administration needs to come up with a sensible strategy to confront Iran where it challenges core U.S. interests. But playing around with a nuclear agreement is both irresponsible and dangerous.
Source: USA Today
President Trump has certified for the second time that Iran is in compliance with the 2015 nuclear accord that limits its nuclear program. But the leaks and background briefings surrounding his statement, followed by new sanctions announced Tuesday, sent unmistakable signals: The decision was taken grudgingly, Trump is increasingly unhappy with Iran and the deal, and he may be looking for a way out.
This is potentially playing with fire. The Iranian regime is repressive, a serial human rights abuser and expanding its influence in the region. Iran without nuclear weapons is a far less dangerous adversary. Unless Iran cheats big time on the agreement, there are four very good reasons why the administration would be well advised not to abandon it or take actions designed to push Iran to do so.
Signaling can be dangerous. Everything about the president’s certification, which is required every 90 days, seemed like a warning to Iran that the next time might be different. The White House put out the story that Trump spent 55 minutes of an hour-long meeting arguing against certification and that he’d been talked into approving it the first time around in April. Administration officials mentioned the additional sanctions and said they intended to strengthen enforcement policies in response to Trump’s request for a more hard-line approach...
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program
Richard Sokolsky is a nonresident senior fellow in Carnegie’s Russia and Eurasia Program. His work focuses on U.S. policy toward Russia in the wake of the Ukraine crisis.
Senior Fellow, American Statecraft Program
Aaron David Miller is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, focusing on U.S. foreign policy.
Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.
Rajiv Bhatia
The U.S.–India semiconductor cooperation story is well-stocked with top-level strategic intent. What remains unresolved, however, are some underlying challenges that will determine whether the cooperation actually functions. Three such friction points stand out.
Shruti Mittal
The India–EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is shaping up to be one of the most consequential trade negotiations, both economically and strategically. But, what’s in the agreement, what’s missing, and what will determine its success in the years ahead
Vrinda Sahai, Nicolas Köhler-Suzuki
Trump 2.0 has unsettled India’s external environment—but has not overturned its foreign policy strategy, which continues to rely on diversification, hedging, and calibrated partnerships across a fractured order.
Milan Vaishnav, ed., Sameer Lalwani, Tanvi Madan, …
India and the United States are close to concluding a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement (RDPA) that will allow firms from the two countries to sell to each other’s defense establishments more easily. While this may not remedy the specific grievances both sides may have regarding larger bilateral issues, an RDPA could restore some momentum, following the trade deal announcement.
Konark Bhandari